|
do, it’s torrential. We did have an event in October 2006 where, right around the time of the
<br />earthquake, where, in fact I think the County experienced a lot of overruns over the highway, Akoni
<br />Pula Highway below, and that is the one time when the water did not stay within the bridge that you
<br />saw with the donkey. And the engineer has visited the site, and feels that it was, it has nothing to do
<br />with the size of the culvert or the bridge – it’s actually aluminum multi-plate with that, it looks like
<br />a bridge from a distance, but it’s really a top-only type of culvert and then the rock walls, the
<br />headwalls. The flow, a couple hundred feet mauka of the bridge where you saw the donkey, there is
<br />a Y, and it normally stays within the original channel and goes right toward the bridge; but in this
<br />exceptional event, while the Akoni Pule Highway was getting overrun in part because of the storm
<br />debris, trees and all, which is one of the reasons why you’ll see in our application that we, our
<br />ongoing efforts are to keep the gulches clear, so that we don’t have that kind of situation. But what
<br />the engineer explained to us happened was that the water went down the diversion, the Y, that’s a
<br />couple hundred feet mauka, and then it hit the waterline trench, which was open, and that’s why we
<br />had water running where it wasn’t supposed to go. But the picture you saw of the river flowing,
<br />that was on October 24; so that was very recent. And we’ve had several flows since the 2006 event,
<br />and all the water stayed where it’s supposed to stay. So what we have done to address this biggest
<br />concern is that the water stay in the drainage way where it’s supposed to, is that we are – we don’t
<br />want to put soil into the waterline trench because then that would just erode, and we don’t want to
<br />use small gravel – so we have started with large rocks, which we don’t need a grading permit for, so
<br />just moving in a bunch of large rocks. And we are in ongoing discussions with the engineers as to
<br />how to prevent the water from going other than where in the original channel.
<br />
<br />The archaeology is just a matter of 2003; they have new standards, new criteria, so you are probably
<br />familiar with other projects that have to have kind of a review. So our biggest concern at this point
<br />is the drainage, and keeping the water where it’s supposed to go, because obviously we don’t want
<br />to lose any of our soil, and we certainly don’t want to inflict our neighbors downstream with any
<br />problems. And an additional thing I would mention about that we have done with drainage, again
<br />which was recommended in the CDP, but we did it luckily years ago and it has functioned perfectly,
<br />is instead of the four drywells that were required along this road, we put in sedimentation ponds, or
<br />retention basins, which people say, well, that would, you know, a lot of people would think that
<br />perhaps that would entail a lot of maintenance; there has been zero maintenance, and it’s collecting
<br />the soil from the any of the runoff, so giving it time to settle out. And that system works so well
<br />that we added another over 20 of these sedimentation basins, which are in tune with the topography,
<br />wherever the topography allowed, we put a basin in so that not only are we trying to do what the
<br />County requires us to keep the soil out of the ocean from going downstream from our construction
<br />zone of the roadway, but also we are trying to prevent any soil from the project itself in everywhere
<br />on the project to retain all the soil possible. So this is a very high concern to us, and we will, we are
<br />working between the engineers and Public Works to re-approve the plans, and to address these
<br />concerns. Thank you.
<br />
<br />GIFFIN: Thank you very much. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Hearing none,
<br />and there is no one who is interested in testifying on this agenda item, Commissioners, just as a
<br />reminder, this is a recommendation, a change of zone for just Condition C, the amendment to
<br />Condition C. The original ordinance was 07-106. And the Director is recommending a favorable
<br />recommendation to be forwarded to the County Council. There are some conditions that were
<br />forwarded. And I think, Jeff, that’s it, right?
<br />
<br />DARROW: Correct, Madam Chair. If you’ll notice on the conditions, there’s no changes. And the
<br />reason for that is it’s, the way that was worded for the time extension is it says, “this amended
<br />4
<br />EXHIBIT C
<br />
<br />
|